Play Nice 2022 AFL/AFLW Crowds/TV Ratings/Stream thread

[manicmagpie]

Whilst I get this and there’s lots of good arguments, the one thing not considered is Collingwood’s ‘role’ in supporting the success of the AFL’s $600M asset, Marvel Stadium.

There’s several clubs, Collingwood included that are playing their part in ensuring the venue is optimised via the Blockbuster quota the Stadium is contracted with the AFL to receive.

IMO the AFL had 2 main paths they could have gone down.

1. Stipulate that Melbourne has 2 stadiums and that they will schedule games at the appropriate one for all Vic teams.

This is mostly what they did for the first decade. Although they still let clubs sign deals with either stadium and crucially, reneged on their promise to move games that looked like exceeding Docklands’ capacity. All clubs except Hawthorn (courtesy of their Tassie games) and Melbourne (Gabba/Cararra/Canberra) played 3 or more home games and around 3 away games every year in that period. This actually worked pretty well - the average for the first 11 seasons of Docklands is 4-5k higher than the last 11 seasons. It's much harder to boycott games when you spend a quarter of your season playing there.

2. The second was to make every team have a home stadium that is used for all home games unless circumstances demand a change.

This is the method of most leagues around the world. It would work out a lot better with the AFL in charge of the stadium instead of a third party that needs to make money in a short space of time.

Unfortunately they've ended up with a hybrid that leaves few satisfied. The MCG tenants resent playing there and it is reflected in the attendances. The flow on effect in the fixturing is significant as I detailed above. Having Essendon and Carlton split their games was always going to lead to tensions and attempts to change the ratio.

As for playing a role in the asset, we can do that with more Away games there. We consistently bring more away fans than any other team.

The biggest impediment currently is the issue of the unused seating at 'sold out' games. You can't have a 55k stadium consistently getting no more than low 40s when there are people wanting to go that can't.

 

[The_Wookie]

IMO the AFL had 2 main paths they could have gone down.

1. Stipulate that Melbourne has 2 stadiums and that they will schedule games at the appropriate one for all Vic teams.

This is mostly what they did for the first decade. Although they still let clubs sign deals with either stadium and crucially, reneged on their promise to move games that looked like exceeding Docklands’ capacity. All clubs except Hawthorn (courtesy of their Tassie games) and Melbourne (Gabba/Cararra/Canberra) played 3 or more home games and around 3 away games every year in that period. This actually worked pretty well - the average for the first 11 seasons of Docklands is 4-5k higher than the last 11 seasons. It's much harder to boycott games when you spend a quarter of your season playing there.

2. The second was to make every team have a home stadium that is used for all home games unless circumstances demand a change.

This is the method of most leagues around the world. It would work out a lot better with the AFL in charge of the stadium instead of a third party that needs to make money in a short space of time.

Unfortunately they've ended up with a hybrid that leaves few satisfied. The MCG tenants resent playing there and it is reflected in the attendances. The flow on effect in the fixturing is significant as I detailed above. Having Essendon and Carlton split their games was always going to lead to tensions and attempts to change the ratio.

As for playing a role in the asset, we can do that with more Away games there. We consistently bring more away fans than any other team.

The biggest impediment currently is the issue of the unused seating at 'sold out' games. You can't have a 55k stadium consistently getting no more than low 40s when there are people wanting to go that can't.

The Bombers cant blame anyone for their arrangements - Essendon very specifically did their deal at Docklands moving from the MCG, and Carlton were screwed over by their own president and ceo of Colonial Stadium in a massive conflict of interest

Its worth noting that clubs - including geelong always played a game or two a year at Waverly Park before Docklands was built. This isnt a new phenomena.

 

[manicmagpie]

The Bombers cant blame anyone for their arrangements - Essendon very specifically did their deal at Docklands moving from the MCG, and Carlton were screwed over by their own president and ceo of Colonial Stadium in a massive conflict of interest

Its worth noting that clubs - including geelong always played a game or two a year at Waverly Park before Docklands was built. This isnt a new phenomena.

The difference with Waverley is that it was built as a genuine neutral ground and stayed that way until the 90s. After it became specifically a Hawthorn/St Kilda home ground the other games there basically stopped (only 8 in total after 1994).

It was also supposed to be an upgrade that housed games too big for the suburban grounds and had better facilities, seats instead of standing etc, whereas Docklands is the lesser of the two options in Melbourne. (Although I will always maintain it's actually a great stadium to watch footy at)

And there's no argument that from me that Essendon in particular made their own bed, my point is that the AFL had an option to not let them do that. They could have stipulated both stadiums in Melbourne were considered home to all Melbourne teams and schedule the games where they best fit.

 

[manicmagpie]

Anyway, today's attendance a little low - 40,663.

Didn't predict last night beating today's game, even with the bad weather.

 

[dave10]

IMO the AFL had 2 main paths they could have gone down.

1. Stipulate that Melbourne has 2 stadiums and that they will schedule games at the appropriate one for all Vic teams.

This is mostly what they did for the first decade. Although they still let clubs sign deals with either stadium and crucially, reneged on their promise to move games that looked like exceeding Docklands’ capacity. All clubs except Hawthorn (courtesy of their Tassie games) and Melbourne (Gabba/Cararra/Canberra) played 3 or more home games and around 3 away games every year in that period. This actually worked pretty well - the average for the first 11 seasons of Docklands is 4-5k higher than the last 11 seasons. It's much harder to boycott games when you spend a quarter of your season playing there.

2. The second was to make every team have a home stadium that is used for all home games unless circumstances demand a change.

This is the method of most leagues around the world. It would work out a lot better with the AFL in charge of the stadium instead of a third party that needs to make money in a short space of time.

Unfortunately they've ended up with a hybrid that leaves few satisfied. The MCG tenants resent playing there and it is reflected in the attendances. The flow on effect in the fixturing is significant as I detailed above. Having Essendon and Carlton split their games was always going to lead to tensions and attempts to change the ratio.

As for playing a role in the asset, we can do that with more Away games there. We consistently bring more away fans than any other team.

The biggest impediment currently is the issue of the unused seating at 'sold out' games. You can't have a 55k stadium consistently getting no more than low 40s when there are people wanting to go that can't.

I agree. And I’ve been saying in various threads for years how many fans have been locked out of this venue and the lack of solutions to address it.

 

[Raz Man]

Anyway, today's attendance a little low - 40,663.

Didn't predict last night beating today's game, even with the bad weather.

Hawks losses recently has not helped todays attendance


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[dave10]

Anyway, today's attendance a little low - 40,663.

Didn't predict last night beating today's game, even with the bad weather.

Bad weather probably kept 6-7,000 away. Also, the Pies / Dogs game felt more enticing to neutrals and importantly both their sets of fans would’ve seen this as entirely winnable and turned up. I doubt you’d find too many objective Hawkers that would’ve been desperate to brave the elements today to see a most likely comfortable loss after last weeks let down.

 

[dave10]

The Bombers cant blame anyone for their arrangements - Essendon very specifically did their deal at Docklands moving from the MCG, and Carlton were screwed over by their own president and ceo of Colonial Stadium in a massive conflict of interest

Its worth noting that clubs - including geelong always played a game or two a year at Waverly Park before Docklands was built. This isnt a new phenomena.

Agree. Although that deal was completed nearly 25 years ago and like the then administration of the club thought moving across town was a good move, the subsequent admin likely think a better balance between the two main venues is more appropriate. Either way, both the Blues and the Bombers appear well placed to leverage their popularity in securing favourable deals in their next stadium negotiations as the league will certainly want as much football from these two giants as possible to underwrite it’s ongoing success, especially post redevelopment.

 

[Kwality]

IMO the AFL had 2 main paths they could have gone down.

1. Stipulate that Melbourne has 2 stadiums and that they will schedule games at the appropriate one for all Vic teams.

This is mostly what they did for the first decade. Although they still let clubs sign deals with either stadium and crucially, reneged on their promise to move games that looked like exceeding Docklands’ capacity. All clubs except Hawthorn (courtesy of their Tassie games) and Melbourne (Gabba/Cararra/Canberra) played 3 or more home games and around 3 away games every year in that period. This actually worked pretty well - the average for the first 11 seasons of Docklands is 4-5k higher than the last 11 seasons. It's much harder to boycott games when you spend a quarter of your season playing there.

2. The second was to make every team have a home stadium that is used for all home games unless circumstances demand a change.

This is the method of most leagues around the world. It would work out a lot better with the AFL in charge of the stadium instead of a third party that needs to make money in a short space of time.

Unfortunately they've ended up with a hybrid that leaves few satisfied. The MCG tenants resent playing there and it is reflected in the attendances. The flow on effect in the fixturing is significant as I detailed above. Having Essendon and Carlton split their games was always going to lead to tensions and attempts to change the ratio.

As for playing a role in the asset, we can do that with more Away games there. We consistently bring more away fans than any other team.

The biggest impediment currently is the issue of the unused seating at 'sold out' games. You can't have a 55k stadium consistently getting no more than low 40s when there are people wanting to go that can't.

All good but this (mess?) has evolved, was never planned by AFL.
The MCC has cherrypicked Melbourne footy & the rest of the clubs are effectively are whats left, with 10+ games a year sold off to any venue with dollars to kick in.

 

[Kwality]

The difference with Waverley is that it was built as a genuine neutral ground and stayed that way until the 90s. After it became specifically a Hawthorn/St Kilda home ground the other games there basically stopped (only 8 in total after 1994).

It was also supposed to be an upgrade that housed games too big for the suburban grounds and had better facilities, seats instead of standing etc, whereas Docklands is the lesser of the two options in Melbourne. (Although I will always maintain it's actually a great stadium to watch footy at)

And there's no argument that from me that Essendon in particular made their own bed, my point is that the AFL had an option to not let them do that. They could have stipulated both stadiums in Melbourne were considered home to all Melbourne teams and schedule the games where they best fit.

The writing was on the board when Richmond moved their VFL home games in the mid 60s to the G. Fitzroy had a dose of the travelling wilburys.
Pointing the finger only delays addressing the problems.

I have no problems with Docklands as a venue.

 

[manicmagpie]

All good but this (mess?) has evolved, was never planned by AFL.
The MCC has cherrypicked Melbourne footy & the rest of the clubs are effectively are whats left, with 10+ games a year sold off to any venue with dollars to kick in.

The AFL dictates where the games are played. I’m pretty sure Collingwood couldn’t have signed a deal with the MCG without AFL approval. The AFL were happy for it to happen because there were trade offs involving removing the necessity for an MCG final every week etc.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL dictates where the games are played. I’m pretty sure Collingwood couldn’t have signed a deal with the MCG without AFL approval. The AFL were happy for it to happen because there were trade offs involving removing the necessity for an MCG final every week etc.

spot on.

 

[dave10]

Regarding crowds generally, I think now close to being back to normal in Victoria. The last 2-3 weeks have seen most games recording almost pre covid normal attendances. Today’s crowd at Marvel looks strong, possibly nudging 36-37,000.

If so that would certainly be another crowd supporting my contention.

 

[gopies1981]

I probably post this every year, but making all Collingwood home games be played at the MCG would be better for the whole competition, not just the Pies.

Currently, our fixture may as well be set in stone.

Every year since GWS joined we have:

• 14 games at the G (contracted)
• 2 home games at Docklands (AFL mandate)
• at least 5 away games to non-Vic clubs (every non-Pies fans’ heads explode if less)

This leaves just one remaining game, which in theory could be anything but in practice has always been set as an away game at Docklands.

This has the effect of locking in particular match ups and excluding others. We virtually have to have away games against Melbourne, Hawthorn, Richmond, Carlton and Essendon every year to fulfill the MCG deal.

We can also only play 1 away game against North Melbourne, St Kilda or the Bulldogs each year, meaning those clubs only get 1 each every three years. Geelong haven’t had a home game against us since 2017, and there‘s no room to give them one unless it’s at the G, which they don’t want.

The insane thing is that in the last 7 seasons, North Melbourne have missed out on a home game against Collingwood the same number of times as Melbourne has in their entire history.

Putting all 11 Collingwood home games MCG makes this so much fairer. In this scenario, only 3 away games at the G are required, which is the amount we‘d get in a random draw anyway.

Keeping the appropriate 5 games away to non-Vic clubs would leave 3 other away games to Vic teams. This could mean more home games against us for the Docklands tenants, it would also mean Geelong could play us at Kardinia Park, or Hawthorn/North to play us in Tasmania (if they want).

The only possible losers from this would be the other MCG tenants, who may have to forego a home game against us every second or third year. Let’s all take a moment to consider their incredible sacrifice.

I along with every Collingwood fan would love to play all out home games at the MCG. But if he have to play home games at marvel it should only be against the smaller interstate clubs such as Gold Coast, GWS, Port and freo.

Playing teams like Sydney who draw 10-15,0000

Brisbane who draw 5-10,000

Adelaide and West coast who draw 3-5,000 in Melbourne should be played at the mcg.

Port and freo draw 1-2,000 and Gold Coast and gws draw under 200 of the own fans.

Collingwood should not play a home game v a marvel home Tennent. But every year the pies play with a home game at marvel against the bulldogs or saints

 

[GIMINO]

All teams should play all 11 games at their home ground and not between two stadiums, sick and tired of teams selling homes games for $$$$$$, if theses teams are not finacially viable let them die off.

 

[Raz Man]

St Kilda v Geelong = 32,517
Port Adelaide v North Melbourne = 5,114


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Taswegian]

St Kilda v Geelong = 32,517
Port Adelaide v North Melbourne = 5,114


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

North crowd is probably reasonable all things considered.

 

[Bjo187]

Sydney v Essendon 27k

 

[MattF185]

I probably post this every year, but making all Collingwood home games be played at the MCG would be better for the whole competition, not just the Pies.

Currently, our fixture may as well be set in stone.

Every year since GWS joined we have:

• 14 games at the G (contracted)
• 2 home games at Docklands (AFL mandate)
• at least 5 away games to non-Vic clubs (every non-Pies fans’ heads explode if less)

This leaves just one remaining game, which in theory could be anything but in practice has always been set as an away game at Docklands.

This has the effect of locking in particular match ups and excluding others. We virtually have to have away games against Melbourne, Hawthorn, Richmond, Carlton and Essendon every year to fulfill the MCG deal.

We can also only play 1 away game against North Melbourne, St Kilda or the Bulldogs each year, meaning those clubs only get 1 each every three years. Geelong haven’t had a home game against us since 2017, and there‘s no room to give them one unless it’s at the G, which they don’t want.

The insane thing is that in the last 7 seasons, North Melbourne have missed out on a home game against Collingwood the same number of times as Melbourne has in their entire history.

Putting all 11 Collingwood home games MCG makes this so much fairer. In this scenario, only 3 away games at the G are required, which is the amount we‘d get in a random draw anyway.

Keeping the appropriate 5 games away to non-Vic clubs would leave 3 other away games to Vic teams. This could mean more home games against us for the Docklands tenants, it would also mean Geelong could play us at Kardinia Park, or Hawthorn/North to play us in Tasmania (if they want).

The only possible losers from this would be the other MCG tenants, who may have to forego a home game against us every second or third year. Let’s all take a moment to consider their incredible sacrifice.

Thank you for this - nice and detailed. I’m just wondering - how do you know about the MCG contract that Collingwood have? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.

 

[weewilly]

North crowd is probably reasonable all things considered.

Sorry 5114 in the capital city of a state like Tasmania that claims to be football heartland is it very bad almost pathetic and doing Tasmania's attempt to get their own team any favours!
If they are stupidly staying away in protest they are only cutting off their nose to spite their face bigtime!

FFS Alice Springs, Cairns and Darwin get better crowds and and are not as big as Hobart!

I think when the clubs vote on a Tassie team later this year they may say yes but delay the entry for a quite number of years!

 

[manicmagpie]

Thank you for this - nice and detailed. I’m just wondering - how do you know about the MCG contract that Collingwood have? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.

It was widely reported at the time (~2007) but stuffed if I can find details on it now. IIRC it was part of a broader deal around the total number of games and 'blockbuster' games the G would get, whilst amongst other things in return the MCG gave up their right to host a final every week.

Our part was the minimum 14 games as well as exclusive access to the lower levels of the Ponsford Stand whether home or away etc.

Weirdly, one of the few results that came up in Googling was from an old post on The_Wookie 's website which incorrectly states we get 16 games a year at the G, something that has never happened ever.

 

[Demon13304]

Sorry 5114 in the capital city of a state like Tasmania that claims to be football heartland is it very bad almost pathetic and doing Tasmania's attempt to get their own team any favours!
If they are stupidly staying away in protest they are only cutting off their nose to spite their face bigtime!

FFS Alice Springs, Cairns and Darwin get better crowds and and are not as big as Hobart!

I think when the clubs vote on a Tassie team later this year they may say yes but delay the entry for a quite number of years!

If you live in Tassie and go for any other team, why on earth would you want to watch a game between North and Port? It's such an unappealing match, what did you expect?
If they had their own team, *ing oath the crowd would be bigger cos they'd actually want to see their team

 

[Billy ray]

I’d be surprised if we get to 8k at Metricon today. Been shite weather all week and although it’s probably the clearest it’s been for days, just drizzling atm, this unseasonal weather for May will put some folks off.

 

[Billy ray]

6136 i heard

 

[Walshawk]

Sorry 5114 in the capital city of a state like Tasmania that claims to be football heartland is it very bad almost pathetic and doing Tasmania's attempt to get their own team any favours!
If they are stupidly staying away in protest they are only cutting off their nose to spite their face bigtime!

FFS Alice Springs, Cairns and Darwin get better crowds and and are not as big as Hobart!

I think when the clubs vote on a Tassie team later this year they may say yes but delay the entry for a quite number of years!

Would you go to watch North v Port? I wouldn’t be interested even if the game was at the local oval at the end of my street.